Over the course of just two days, the Washington Post pounded its readers with 12 "birther" stories aimed at Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Headlines included, "Can Ted Cruz Run for President?", "Canadian Born Ted Cruz Releases Birth Certificate Amid Queries if He's Eligible for Presidential Run," "Ted Cruz: I am Not a Canadian," and "No, Ted Cruz "Birthers" are Not the Same as Obama Birthers":**snipThough there is no legal question as to Cruz's eligibility to run for president (Cruz was born an American citizen), the Post has spent the last 48 hours bedeviling the Hispanic senator with articles obviously meant to put him on defense and plant a seed of doubt in voters' minds.

The timing of the Post's assault is also curious. By accident or design, it dovetails perfectly with a widely criticized Daily Beast hit-piece on Cruz that also focuses on and questions Cruz's past and background.

Since being elected to the United States Senate in 2012, Cruz has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of President Obama and his signature healthcare plan, ObamaCare. The Washington Post has endorsed Obama for president, and frequently used its news and editorial pages to defend ObamaCare.

In the past, the Post has also launched crusades to destroy the careers of many Republicans, including US Senate candidate George Allen, presidential candidate Mitt Romney, presidential candidate Rick Perry, and current gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli -- among others. The Post's modus operandi is similar to what Cruz is currently facing: The Post floods the zone with stories critical of the Republican in an effort to undermine their candidacy through character assassination.

Not one significant authority in the entirety of United States history, conservative, liberal or otherwise, has EVER interpreted the Constitution the way that birthers do. Not one single significant legal or historical authority has EVER given "natural born citizen" the meaning they give it. Not one single bona-fine published textbook in American history has EVER said that it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. There's no real legal or historical argument here at all. Not among the people who deal professionally with either history or law. The ONLY people making this claim are a bunch of people on the internet who have little understanding of either history or law, but insist that they do.

No it doesn't. It's still written by that Idiot, and it's still idiocy, though i'm not surprised to see you find it significant somehow.

""Not one significant authority in the entirety of United States history, conservative, liberal or otherwise, has EVER interpreted the Constitution the way that birthers do. Not one single significant legal or historical authority has EVER given "natural born citizen" the meaning they give it. Not one single bona-fine published textbook in American history has EVER said that it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. There's no real legal or historical argument here at all. Not among the people who deal professionally with either history or law. The ONLY people making this claim are a bunch of people on the internet who have little understanding of either history or law, but insist that they do." "

You really don't believe this, do you?

Know who Representative Bingham (of Ohio) was and what he said on this issue? Do you think Rep Bingham was insignificant?

153
posted on 08/21/2013 2:23:44 PM PDT
by rxsid
(HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))

But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen "

Now let's take a look at the full text without the chopped sentence:

But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived, and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909 as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California.

Plummz:” This is false. Hamilton proposed the Presidential qualification that he be a “born citizen,” but this was rejected by the founders in favor of John Jay’s reccommendation that the President be only a natural born citizen.

Please stop lying about our Founding Fathers. “

Sorry Plummz, but you are mistaken. You are either born a citizen and eligible, or are naturalized and are not.

Minor V Happersett
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

“The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

No parental requirement there

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

This is false. Hamilton proposed the Presidential qualification that he be a "born citizen," but this was rejected by the founders in favor of John Jay's reccommendation that the President be only a natural born citizen.

Please stop lying about our Founding Fathers.

This is another FALSE birther meme.

Hamilton's wording was never "rejected," for the simple reason that IT WAS NEVER PLACED BEFORE THE DELEGATES OF THE CONSITUTIONAL CONVENTION AT ALL.

He made PERSONAL NOTES of the kind of Constitution he wanted. Among those notes he wrote that he wanted the President to be born a citizen.

He got a lot of what he wanted. His private notes were handed to James Madison at the end of the Convention.

THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT HAMILTON'S "BORN A CITIZEN" AND JOHN JAY'S "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" MEANT ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

In fact, there were 55 Delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Only TWO men proposed a birth qualification for President.

John Jay, who wasn't at the Convention, and Alexander Hamilton, who was.

Why those two and nobody else?

Guess what.

John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were personal friends and close working associates who lived in the same city, and who actively worked together both before and after the Convention. In fact, Hamilton was the major author of The Federalist (also known as "the Federalist Papers"), which was instrumental in convincing the people of the key State of New York to actually adopt the Constitution.

He was assisted in this task by... John Jay and James Madison.

160
posted on 08/21/2013 3:50:14 PM PDT
by Jeff Winston
(Yeah, I think I could go with Cruz in 2016.)

Oh... and once again, as your own source notes: Greisser’s father was basically a tourist in the US, or on a temporary trade mission. The younger Bayard’s position was that the US-born child of a German citizen WHO HAD HIS DOMICILE IN GERMANY was not a US citizen.

So it was a “no birth tourists” type position.

Not unreasonable, and not in conflict with the principle that if Greisser had been born here to a German father WITH HIS PERMANENT DOMICILE IN THE UNITED STATES, he would’ve been a natural born US citizen.

164
posted on 08/21/2013 4:07:21 PM PDT
by Jeff Winston
(Yeah, I think I could go with Cruz in 2016.)

It was a patriarchal era. The citizenship of females was not an issue. They went where their husbands told them to go. Children as well did what the father directed.

A father could be a citizen, and it would be irrelevant about the mother. It seems a hard cold time, but it is the case for that era. Women did not vote and, therefore, were not a consideration and not even mentioned..

If we really want to cause a stir on Free Republic we should propose that Sarah Palin run under the understanding of female candidacy at the time of the Constitution.

173
posted on 08/21/2013 5:32:06 PM PDT
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)

From the book In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle Against Discrimination in Nineteenth Century America by Charles J. Mc Clain
Page 363 footnote 4: “In a case decided 12 years later, Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920), the Supreme Court, following the principles laid down in Chin Yow, ordered a Chinese person admitted to the United States on the grounds that federal officials had disregarded evidence plainly relevant to his claim of citizenship. “It is better that many Chinese Immigrants be improperly admitted,” said the Court, “than one NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States should be permanently excludd from his country.”

The 1790 language also stated being a free white person were only considered natural born Citizens. I guess that is still applies too, right?

That is not accurate. The "being a free white person" applied to the discussion of aliens being naturalized. See the 1790 law underlined at the bottom of this post. Also, please note that the same "white" requirement was also in the 1795 law.

Next, please note in the 1795 law that it says "the RIGHT of citizenship DESCENDS..." to those born to citizen parents overseas: and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:

By saying that a RIGHT DESCENDS, it is saying that it is BIRTHRIGHT citizenship. It is the same as the use of "natural born citizen" in the 1790 law. It is a RIGHT and it DESCENDS from parent to child. By RIGHT.

United States Congress, An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

178
posted on 08/21/2013 6:01:26 PM PDT
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)

Female vote and the understanding of female citizenship is one reason that current law on the issue of citizenship testifies powerfully to Congress’ authority to make all necessary and proper laws to carry out their power to regulate naturalization.

180
posted on 08/21/2013 6:10:12 PM PDT
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)

It was a patriarchal era. The citizenship of females was not an issue. They went where their husbands told them to go. Children as well did what the father directed. A father could be a citizen, and it would be irrelevant about the mother.

So then a child of a citizen father during that era would always be NBC.

Of course, these are not generally authoritative sources, like court decisions or pieces of legislation. But the list purports to convey an understanding of what prevailing thought on the subject has been, and it would help if you had a comparable list to counterbalance it.

IT WAS NEVER PLACED BEFORE THE DELEGATES OF THE CONSITUTIONAL CONVENTION AT ALL.

You have absolutely no evidence for this claim.

Of course I do, genius, or I wouldn't have made it.

Unlike you.

The members of the Constitutional Convention kept records. There were both official records and unofficial records kept by various Delegates, including James Madison.

Over 100 years ago, Professor Max Farrand compiled the records of the Convention into 4 volumes. There are more than 2,000 pages of records from the Constitutional Convention.

Hamilton did make a presentation of sorts to the other delegates, fairly early in the game.

But even this presentation was not put formally before the Convention for their approval. He simply read an outline of his working plan, for the purpose of throwing out some of his ideas.

And that plan did NOT contain any birth qualification whatsoever for President.

His "born a Citizen" wording appears ONLY in a paper he gave to James Madison AFTER THE CONVENTION WAS OVER.

And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the delegates "rejected" Hamilton's "born a Citizen" wording, or that they saw any difference in meaning at all between the words "born a Citizen" and the words "a natural born Citizen."

Nor is there any statement whatsoever from the 2,000-plus pages of Constitutional Convention documentation, any Founding Father, any historical writer, or any legal expert in history that anybody found any particular difference between the words "born a Citizen" and "a natural born Citizen."

Gee. Don't you think if there was a difference, somebody would've commented on it?

Don't you think that if the delegates had "rejected Hamilton's proposal," SOMEBODY would've commented on it?

Of course they would have.

MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND PAGES OF NOTES AND DOCUMENTS FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, AND NOT ONE PERSON COMMENTS, "HEY, WE THOUGHT HAMILTON'S PROPOSAL WAS TOO 'LENIENT,' SO WE CHANGED THE WORDING."

Hamilton's "proposal" THAT WAS NEVER EVEN PRESENTED, AS FAR AS ANYBODY CAN TELL.

Farrand, who read every single damn note of the records, comments that Hamilton's document "was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton."

No, the REALITY is that only two men proposed a birth qualification for President.

John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.

And the two were so close that they collaborated on the crucial Federalist Papers after the Convention.

One said "born a Citizen," the other said "natural born Citizen." Maybe "natural born Citizen" had a nicer ring to it. I don't know.

But the thing I do know is that not one of the Founders or Framers or any other early US legal experts EVER said that "natural born Citizen" was anything more than "born a Citizen."

They just didn't.

And you would know that if you actually read HISTORY, and LAW, and the CONSTITUTION, instead of just reading the stupid opinion of some pathetically uninformed birther who flatters himself that he knows what he's talking about, when in reality he doesn't have a clue.

191
posted on 08/21/2013 7:02:35 PM PDT
by Jeff Winston
(Yeah, I think I could go with Cruz in 2016.)

Oh... and once again, as your own source notes: Greissers father was basically a tourist in the US, or on a temporary trade mission. The younger Bayards position was that the US-born child of a German citizen WHO HAD HIS DOMICILE IN GERMANY was not a US citizen.

No Jeff. You don't get to lie about your firmly held position. You have never cut out a niche for "birth tourism." Your theory doesn't ALLOW such deviations from dogma. The Gospel of Natural Born according to JEFF WINSTON is that ANYONE BORN HERE IS A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN."

Once more, you twist and dodge like a snake, but you are nailed like a bug in an Entomology display.

(Jeff is the big stinkbug in the middle.)

There are TWO aspects of this which contradict your long held Dogma.

1. Your BORN HERE theory allows no exceptions and never did. English Law doesn't recognize the "tourism" exception. You've said over and over and over again that anyone BORN HERE is a "natural born citizen." Attempts to show you that you were wrong were met with "EVERY AUTHORITY IN THE KNOWN GALAXY AGREES WITH ME!" You don't get to back away from this position now that it has been shown to be utterly false. You OWN it!

2. Barack Obama, whose legitimacy you CONSTANTLY DEFENDED is one of these children of a "birth tourist" which you are now dishonestly claiming is your new, better informed position.

See this guy?

Temp Student here for a visit. NOT PERMANENT RESIDENT. DOMICILE IS IN KENYA. But what has Jeffery been doing for years? "OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BECAUSE HE WAS BORN HERE !"

So which is it Jeff? Do you stick by the lies you've been telling for years, or do you go with the New Lie you've cooked up to cover your no longer supportable claim?

Jeff Jeff Jeff Jeff... We know you. You've never needed evidence to make wild claims. You just do it. As a matter of fact, we know you have an aversion to evidence, because every time we show you some, you shriek like a little girl and run away in horror!

All you’ve tried to prove is that Hamilton’s idea was so hare-brained that it didn’t even merit a “formal” presentation. Thus, it was rightly rejected. That you would try to resurrect this rejected idea outside of the due process of Constitutional amendment is repugnant and anti-American.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.